Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP--you look bang to rights so you would have to determine if there are flaws in the documentation or the signage.

Here's the Notice:-

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4234296

Note where it says:-

although in practice it is anticipated that the zones will only operate during these hours in school term-time

I would get hold of the Order to see if that statement is there too. Not "anticipated" but more precise or stronger i.e. "term times only".

If so there could be a case that there is a failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty of LATOR 1996 because a very significant part of the information as to the effect of the Order has not been  conveyed to road users by the sign in situ.

And this is the case I would use in support:-

Case Details
Case reference    2230471029
Appellant    Harvey Kutner
Authority    London Borough of Camden
VRM    EP19HYL
PCN Details
PCN    CU64608996
Contravention date    13 Jul 2023
Contravention time    08:39:00
Contravention location    Elsworthy Road
Penalty amount    GBP 130.00
Contravention    Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date    
Decision Date    02 Dec 2023
Adjudicator    Jack Walsh
Appeal decision    Appeal allowed
Direction    cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons    
Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (“Regulation 18) reads, as far as is relevant:
“Traffic signs
18 (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force…”

In R v. Bus Lane Adjudicator ex parte Nottingham City Council [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) Lang J observed at [38]:
“It is well-established that a failure to comply with the regulation 18 duty as to signage is a proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a penalty charge notice on the ground that the alleged contravention of the relevant traffic regulation order did not occur. (See R (London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51]).”

By contrast to typical traffic management orders (TMOs) that create a prohibition on motor vehicles on school streets during the beginning and end of the school day, the TMO in this case makes express reference to the term times of the relevant school in its wording. The provision states (with my underlining):
"“No person shall cause any motor vehicle to enter the section of Elsworthy Road which lies between the south-western kerb line of Primrose Hill Road and the northeastern kerb line of Elsworthy Rise between 8.30 and 9.30am and between 3 and 4pm on Mondays to Fridays during school term times”.

The effect of the TMO is limited temporally not merely by the time of day, or the day of the week, but - expressly - by whether the day falls within a school term.

The signage, however, informs road users only of the first two of those three temporal restrictions on the prohibition on motor vehicles. It fails to convey to road users the very significant information that the prohibition does not apply during school holidays which, as the EA's own evidence demonstrates, comprise several weeks of the year.

This is different to the position in respect of the 'typical' school street TMO which makes no reference to term times but is simply not enforced during school holidays. In this case, the EA chose to create, as part of the terms of the TMO, a temporal restriction on the prohibition by reference to term times.

Consequently, there was a clear failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty because a very significant part of the information as to the effect of the TMO was not conveyed to road users by the relevant signage in place on the occasion in question.

In those circumstances the alleged contravention is not proved.
-------------------------------

Mike

According to the PCN, dated 3/5, I have only 6 more days to get the discount rate. I still am curious about the chock starting to tick 'beginning with the date on the note'; I thought a certain amount of days were given for service (in this case, 8 days)

You are mistaken. The last day for payment at the discount rate is the 16th May.

03/05/2024 = Friday = Day 1 of 14 day discount window
16/05/2024 = Thursday = Day 14 of 14 day discount window.

I would submit your best shot at representations using their online form before close of business on the 16th, preferably the day before. If they reject they probably will, but are not obliged to, re-offer the discount window.

PS
Is there a postmark on the envelope?

I thought that the 14-day grace period for paying the discount rate began when the PCN was served.

It depends on the legislation, under this particular Act of Parliament the discount period is 14 days from the date of the notice.

At this point the representation is only there to buy us some time, so it hardly matters what you say as long as you avoid anything self-incriminating.

Something like this should suffice:


Hopefully by the time you get the notice of rejection, we will have the traffic order. The notice of rejection should reoffer the discount for a further 14 days from the date of service of that notice, so we'll have a bit of time to consider next steps.

I have just received the attached rejection of my representations
Lambeth has re-offered the discount for 14 days dated from 28/5
The letter mentions, in bold, that 'It is only enforced during the school term times' though they do not address the fact that this information does not appear on the applicable signs
The letter later claims that 'our signs are compliant and stipulate the restriction information'
I made a Request for Traffic Order 2022 under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. School Streets on 12/ and 24/5. I have not had a response

https://ibb.co/KyM3VG2

Thank you

You have the right in law to go to the council offices and ask to see the relevant traffic order. Of course the law is in the Dark Ages, but most councils have the TOs on e-records as it greatly assists with their own admin. So you could ask to be provided with a e-copy. It is something I have never done.  Our administrator cp8759 seems to be able to get them reasonably quickly.

The real problem we see on this forum is peoples worries about the discount. If you have a strong case it is surely irrelevant ?

My alleged contravention was 29 April

At the top of the new order, The Lambeth (Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024, it states:
Coming into force:- 27th April 2024

However, in the first point it states:
Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Lambeth (Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024 and shall come into force on 29th April 2024.

To my untrained eyes, the Order is very different to The Lambeth (Prescribed Routes) (No. 11) Traffic Order 2022, which it has, if I understand correctly, replaced

The original order cites Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(a); the recent TMO cites the Local Government Act 1972, or section 19 of the Local Government Act 2000

There is no mention of school streets nor of the type or requirements of signage, which is the point brought up on this forum by guest17

The only passage that refers to pedestrian zone is “pedestrian and cycle zone” has the same meaning as in the 2016 Regulations

It also states:
(1) during the hours of operation of that no vehicles prohibition.
(2) during the hours of operation of that play street no vehicles prohibition.

I do not know if any of the above is helpful. The signage argument offered by guest17, specifically mentioning that the restriction only applied during term times only seems well backed-up by the case involving Camden

I will await your replies. I have heard nothing from Lambeth in regards to my request for the Order. I appreciate that I now have access to it (them), but if  Lambeth just ignores the request, could that not disqualify the prosecution?

Thank you

Thank you, Wizard

It doesn't seem very prudent to count on the Council, even though it is Lambeth, making a major clerical error in order to win this. Of course, they might never send me either Order

I have to decide tonight as the rejection was dated 28/5

I thought when I read guest17's contribution at the top (May 11), arguing that the sign was defective, even citing a case to that effect (sign not stating that it is only in force during school terms), that it was spot on, but you have not mentioned it

I also suppose the fact that the school had been out 35 minutes before I drove by and that the road was completely clear of any pedestrians, doesn't matter a hoot

So, it is double-or-nothing